Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - would you kill 63 people for world peace

- Tilted Philosophy (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-philosophy/)

- - would you kill 63 people for world peace (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-philosophy/70830-would-you-kill-63-people-world-peace.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Not necessarily saying that they would turn to violence (that goes against the hypothetical), but it just goes along with the concept of peace at any cost. Its ridiculous and hypocritical, beyond that when you ask if everyone were willing to prove me wrong then there would be absolutely no reason to have to murder in the first place. But this is again going outside the hypothetical. The point still remains that its morally abhorent and no peace created in such a way could ever last because its based upon violence. Along the same lines, you can't really expect world peace to ever be able to be achieved through murder/violence. Honestly, if there was world peace that world's inhabitants would shun the killing of any number of people and since we are hold that world up to the ideal perhaps we should strive for that type of morality.

Sorry, a slight misunderstanding. If I were to kill the 63 people and bring about global peace, and if you were to ask all the people of the world if they'd rather have those 63 return to life or keep the peace, IMHO, the world would undoubtedly stay at peace.

You can't use "M" to name morality, except for your personal morality. For the world as a whole, "Morality" as such, doesn't exist.

As long as there is a constant fight for power between mankind then the fantasy of world peace is just that a fantasy.
But to answer the question....Yes.
But how would you pick the 63?
Would the 63 be chosen by the level of hate we have for them, the lifestyle they chosen to live, the mistakes they have made, if they were sick, the color of their skin or their religion?
Because if we used those facts as the determination wouldn't that be supporting what keeps world peace a fantasy?
Possibly the 63 could be made up of volunteers of the human race who would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for a possible future of world peace...but that sacrifice is made everyday by men and women in our armed forces around the world.
Would I have the strength to be the one to take their lives?
Yes.....but the spot of #63 would be mine...to honor the sacrifice of the 62 before me.

World Peace? nah. Peace of Mind, hell yeah.

I think I could easily do what John Cusack does in Grosse Pointe Blank.

I think part of this paradox is that world peace just wouldn't be peaceful, or at least, not pleasant.

World peace with this many people on the planet, would assume that all these billions stay alive. That places a huge burden on the natural world. Just sustaining our current population would eventually bring the extinction of millions of other oraganisms.

So, to make this world peace happen, it would require, at the very least, that people change their paradigms as far as consumption, making babies, etc. Well, while someone from northern California or Holland might be okay with having one kid or less, someone from India or Africa might be depressed at the prospect of only having one kid. Likewise, the quality of life that most Americans are used to would definately have to change for the worse in order to stop our war on the environment. These changes might be so drastic, and against our respective cultures, that the outcome could indeed be a living hell to the people in this peaceful world.

Peace is not possible.